Mr Robert A Senior

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Registrant was not present at the hearing and was not represented. The Panel therefore considered whether the Notice of Hearing had been correctly served.

2. The Panel noted that the Registrant was sent notice of the hearing via his registered email address that he had previously provided to the HCPC. The Notice provided all of the relevant information and explained to the Registrant how he could participate. The Panel had sight of confirmation of delivery of that email dated 29 April 2025. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been sent with the 28 days required before the hearing.

3. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant had been given notice of the hearing in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

4. The Panel then went on to consider whether it would be in the public interest to proceed in the Registrant’s absence in accordance with Rule 11.

5. Mr Collins, submitted that it was in the public interest to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, as it was evident he had voluntarily waived his right to attend. No adjournment had been requested by the Registrant and there was nothing to suggest that if the case was adjourned, he would attend a future hearing. Mr Collins submitted that there had been no meaningful engagement by the Registrant for some time.

6. Mr Collins submitted that there was a public interest in cases being heard expeditiously and in good time. Mr Collins submitted that it would run counter to the public interest if the Registrant could frustrate the Regulatory process and there was no good reason to adjourn proceedings.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Notes on proceeding in a Registrant’s absence. She advised that the Panel had a discretion as to whether to proceed in absence which should be exercised with caution. The Panel should consider, whether in the circumstances, it is in the public interest to proceed. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel should consider whether the Registrant had waived his right to attend and whether a fair hearing could take place in his absence. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it should take into account the public interest in the hearing of cases in a timely and efficient manner and consider the HCPC’s overarching objective to protect the public.

8. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing and that he had been given the option to attend, however he had chosen not to do so and instead voluntarily absented himself. Further, there was no application to adjourn by the Registrant. In the circumstances, the Panel could not see any basis for not proceeding today and there would be nothing gained by adjourning the hearing, as there was nothing to reassure the Panel that the Registrant would attend a future hearing. These were serious allegations, and it was in the public interest to determine them without delay.

9. Accordingly, the Panel determined that it would be in the public interest for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

10. The Registrant is a registered Chiropodist/Podiatrist. The HCPC received a referral from the Registrant’s employer, South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“SWYP”), dated 9 May 2023. SWYP’s referral notified the HCPC of a police investigation into alleged indecent images of children made by the Registrant. The Registrant was suspended by SWYP as a result of the police investigation and the Registrant resigned from SWYP in April 2024.

11. The HCPC received a further referral from South Yorkshire Police dated 16 July 2024 confirming that the Registrant was to be charged in respect of indecent images of children that were found on his devices. South Yorkshire Police confirmed the Registrant was charged on 5 August 2024 with 3 offences of making indecent photographs of children. The Registrant was charged with making 65 Category A indecent photographs, 49 Category B indecent photographs and 2270 Category C indecent photographs.

12. The Registrant pleaded guilty on 28 August 2024 at Barnsley Magistrates Court and was sentenced on 30 September 2024. The Registrant was sentenced to a Community Order which required him to complete up to 30 days rehabilitation activity, 5 years Sex Offenders’ Registration and a 5 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order together with a forfeiture and destruction order of 2 laptops and a tablet.

Decision on Facts

13. The Panel took into account the documentary evidence in relation to the conviction. In making its findings, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests with the HCPC and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Rule 10(d) of the Rules states that “where a registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or in Scotland and extract of conviction) shall be admissible as proof of the findings of fact on which it was based”.

14. The Panel considered the Certificate of Conviction from the Barnsley Magistrates’ Court. The document was not dated and the Panel noted that it had not been certified by the court officer. The Panel had regard to a chain of emails from the Listing/Admin Officer of Barnsley Magistrates Court seeking payment of the fee for the certificate of conviction and an email attaching the document sent to Capsticks solicitors. The Panel considered that in all the circumstances the document could be relied upon and had come from the relevant court. The Panel considered that the absence of a signature was a technical oversight, and this did not affect the veracity of the document.

15. The Panel also noted that the email from the Registrant’s former employers dated 18 November 2024 confirmed the details contained within the certificate of conviction with regard to the registrant’s guilty plea on the 28 August 2024 and the sentence imposed on the 30 September 2024. There was no information before the Panel from the Registrant that this was not an accurate record of the conviction.

16. In view of this, the Panel found particular 1 of the Allegation proved.

Decision on Grounds

17. In light of the findings made regarding the facts of the conviction the Panel was satisfied that the statutory ground of conviction was made out.

Decision on Impairment

18. Mr Collins addressed the Panel in relation to impairment. He submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired both in relation to the personal and public component. He submitted that the Registrant had not provided any evidence that he had addressed the circumstances that led to the offending or provided any material for the Panel to consider in relation to remediation and insight.

19. Mr Collins submitted that the Panel should have regard to the nature and gravity of the offences and drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the Registrant was still subject to his community sentence and sexual harm prevention and registration requirements. He submitted that the Panel should have regard to the principle that the Registrant would not be considered suitable to resume unrestricted practice whilst the sentence was ongoing and therefore a finding of impairment was required to reflect this principle.

20. Mr Collins submitted that the conviction was for a very serious matter involving the highest level of indecent images. Mr Collins submitted that a finding of impairment was required to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the professions and the public would be shocked if such a finding was not made.

21. In addressing the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor and applied the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. Accordingly, it considered both the personal and public components.

22. With regard to the personal component, aside from the Registrant’s guilty plea there was no evidence before the Panel of reflection, remorse or insight. The Panel noted that in his email dated 8 July 2024, to the HCPC the Registrant stated “My values could not allow me to continue working for an unsupportive organisation and ….I decided to retire.” There was no detailed reflection from the Registrant to reassure the Panel that he had addressed the issues that led to the offending to prevent any repetition or that he had any insight into the impact his conviction had on service users and the reputation of the profession.

23. The Panel therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence of insight and remediation and there was a risk of repetition. For that reason the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired upon the personal component.

24. So far as the public component of impairment of fitness to practise is concerned, the Panel considered that a finding of impaired fitness to practise is necessary. The Panel considered that the conviction is for a very serious range of offences involving multiple indecent images of the highest category. The Panel considered that members of the public would be shocked if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances. The Panel considered the conviction undermined the trust the public places in the profession and a finding of impairment was necessary to uphold public trust and proper professional standards.

Decision on Sanction

25. Mr Collins did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction but drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs in the Sanctions Policy concerning offences relating to indecent images of children. He also referred the Panel to the case of Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87, where it was stated at paragraph 54 that “I am satisfied that, as a general principle, where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence or offences he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence. Only circumstances which plainly justify a different course should permit otherwise.”

26. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Collins, together with all the relevant evidence. The Panel also referred to the guidance issued by the Council in its Sanctions Policy (“SP”). The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

27. The SP provides specific guidance in relation to cases that involve sexual misconduct. It is stated that, “Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession.” The SP goes on to state, “Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction.”

28. The Panel also noted that paragraph 79 of the SP states: “Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.”

29. The Panel also noted and endorsed the following guidance at paragraph 89 of the Sanctions Guidance:

“Any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction”

30. The Panel had all this guidance in mind when deciding the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

31. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:

• a sustained and repeated course of offending between January 2019 and April 2023;
• a large amount of indecent images including the most serious category of images;
• a lack of evidence of insight or remorse;
• a lack of evidence of remediation;

32. In the absence of the Registrant the Panel had no evidence before it of any mitigating factors, other than evidence of a guilty plea in the criminal proceedings.

33. The Panel approached the decision of sanction, beginning with the least restrictive sanction. In light of the seriousness of the conduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action or consider mediation, since neither would protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel or reflect the seriousness of the matters underlying the conviction. The same was true of a Caution Order.

34. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be appropriate but noted paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:

“Conditions are … less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving ….. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children.”

35. The Panel was unable to formulate conditions of practice which would be relevant or appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted. In any event, the Registrant has indicated that he has now retired and will not be returning to practice.

36. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The SP states that, “Suspension should be considered where the allegation is of a serious nature but unlikely to be repeated and, thus, striking off is not merited.” The Panel reminded itself of its earlier findings of an absence of insight, sexually motivated behaviour involving children and the risk of repetition. Although a Suspension Order would provide protection to the public for its duration, the Panel was not satisfied that it would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process, or to send a clear message to the profession at large that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The Panel determined that a Suspension Order would not be a sufficient sanction in the circumstances of this case. The Panel considered the criteria for imposing a Suspension Order but concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be fundamentally incompatible with his remaining on the Register.

37. The Panel considered the guidance in the SP on making a Striking-Off Order so as to be able to decide whether such an Order would be appropriate in this case. The guidance states that, “Striking off is a sanction of last resort for serious, deliberate or reckless acts involving abuse of trust such as, sexual abuse, dishonesty or persistent failure.” It goes on to observe that “Striking off should be used where there is no other way to protect the public, for example, where there is a lack of insight, continuing problems or denial. A Registrant’s inability or unwillingness to resolve matters will suggest that a lower sanction may not be appropriate.” The Panel finds that in this case there is no explanation for the offending, serious sexually motivated acts, a lack of insight, no remorse and no evidence of a willingness to resolve matters.

38. The SP goes on to suggest that a Striking-Off Order may be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the allegation are such that any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and undermine confidence in the profession. The Panel’s earlier finding in relation to the consideration of a Suspension Order identified that a lesser sanction would indeed be insufficient to represent these wider public interest issues, in the specific circumstances of this case.

39. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states:

“A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving …. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children”

40. Paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy states:

“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process”.

41. The Panel concluded that, in light of the seriousness of the conviction and the ingrained offending, the lack of insight and remediation together with a real risk that the behaviour would be repeated, the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking-Off Order. The Panel took into account the impact this would have on the Registrant, but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public.

42. Accordingly, the Panel makes a Striking-Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Robert A Senior from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1. The Panel considered the application by the HCPC for an Interim Order to cover the appeal period. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been served with the appropriate notice of the Panel’s powers to consider an Interim Order in the Notice of Hearing dated 29 April 2025. The Panel considered it was appropriate to proceed in his absence for all the reasons outlined in its earlier determination.

2. The HCPC’s application is made on the 2 statutory grounds as follows:

• it is necessary for the protection of members of the public

• is otherwise in the public interest.

3. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. The Panel considered that to do otherwise would be inconsistent with its earlier findings and would not protect the public from the risks identified or maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that the period of 18 months was required to cover the likely length of time required for any appeal to be heard.

4. The Panel noted that such an order may have a detrimental effect on the Registrant however, this was outweighed by the need to protect the public.

5. This order will expire:

• if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made;

• if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order, the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months to cover the length of any appeal.
Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mr Robert A Senior